Strictly speaking, do aggregate bodies "exist"?

[Ħ]

A forkle is a much simpler system than a keyboard. A forkle is two adjacent rocks. A keyboard has keys, a base, and a bunch of technological junk on the inside. They are both aggregate bodies without any inherent significance other than that which humans assign to them.

The question isn't whether the parts of the keyboard exist or the rocks in the forkle exist. That isn't what's being debated here. The question is whether the aggregate bodies themselves exist.

Does a keyboard exist? The only correct answer is: only as much as a forkle does.

Yeah. Suppose all humans dropped dead this second. The thing we called a keyboard would still be there. So I'd say a forkle, as we've defined it, existed long before humans. The names of aggregate bodies (and bodies themselves) were invented by humans.

I do have a question though, for people well-versed in chemistry. The fundamental particle of nature is the atom. But can we mentally subdivide an atom into, say, the eastern half and western half, and so on ad naseum?

[eric42434224]

The atom is the fundamental particle of nature?

[Ħ]

Yes. It was once thought that you could chop up bodies on to infinity, but this is not so once you hit the atomic level.

[eric42434224]

Yes. It was once thought that you could chop up bodies on to infinity, but this is not so once you hit the atomic level.

I was under the impression that the atom was made up of more fundamental particles like electrons, and that the atom has already been split 80 years ago.

https://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_the_first_person_to_split_the_atom

[Ħ]

That is true. But "atoms" exist pretty much as cohesive units and are naturally indivisible, right? I am not sure, actually. If, eric, what you are saying is true, then an atom is not a fundamental unit and it is just an aggregate.

[eric42434224]

That is true. But "atoms" exist pretty much as cohesive units and are naturally indivisible, right? I am not sure, actually. If, eric, what you are saying is true, then an atom is not a fundamental unit and it is just an aggregate.

Im stating like, 5th grade chemistry.
In Nature, atoms can and do change.
We see it every day when we look in the noon day sky.

[Ħ]

Who says a fundamental particle can't change?

[eric42434224]

Who says a fundamental particle can't change?

Nobody.

[rumborak]

That is true. But "atoms" exist pretty much as cohesive units and are naturally indivisible, right?

 

You've heard of protons and electrons, right?

rumborak

[Scheavo]

https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=32236.0

Do we really need two threads about pretty much the exact same thing?

To point out, the topics discussed in this thread and the one you linked may appear similar, but they are not.

But the answers to the topics are the exact same. Notice the similarities in the answers?

[Ħ]

That is true. But "atoms" exist pretty much as cohesive units and are naturally indivisible, right?

 

You've heard of protons and electrons, right?

rumborak

Yes of course. I am just wondering if it is reasonable to think of atoms as tiny little spheres where you can say "this half" and "that half". Or if you could do that for subatomic particles. If you can divide particles that way....then there really is no "fundamental particle", and every idenitifiable body is an aggregate.

[eric42434224]

That is true. But "atoms" exist pretty much as cohesive units and are naturally indivisible, right?

 

You've heard of protons and electrons, right?

rumborak

Yes of course. I am just wondering if it is reasonable to think of atoms as tiny little spheres where you can say "this half" and "that half". Or if you could do that for subatomic particles. If you can divide particles that way....then there really is no "fundamental particle", and every idenitifiable body is an aggregate.

No, it is not reasonable to think of an atom as a sphere you can continually cut in halves like a meatball.
It is a bit shocking you would even ask that.

Not everything is divisible, or at least as we know it.  A quark is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter.

[Ħ]

You have the electron cloud whose orbitals are contained within spheres. But technically, an atom is mostly empty space.

I should have been more specific. Can you divide the center of an atom (the nucleus) like a sphere into "this half" and "that half"?

[eric42434224]

You have the electron cloud whose orbitals are contained within spheres. But technically, an atom is mostly empty space.

I should have been more specific. Can you divide the center of an atom (the nucleus) like a sphere into "this half" and "that half"?

You really dont know this stuff?

Yes an atom can be divisible (split)....into two different atoms, or isotopes too....and photons/neutrons/energy, I believe.  It's called Fission.

Meaning x atom will be split, but into a y and z atom....not two smaller x atoms.  Which is what I think you are asking.
Obviously a very basic explanation.

[Ħ]

Just to be clear. Can you take a SINGLE proton/electron/quark/whatever and say "this half" and "that half"? I'd like someone who actually knows what they're talking about to respond. Someone like Dr. DTVT.

[ariich]

Mentally you can do that, sure. As to whether it has any meaning physically - you're getting into VERY deep physics territory here.

For example, I'm guessing you think of an atom as an electron orbiting round a nucleus in the way a planet orbits a sun. Whereas that's really only a simplification, a way of visualising it. The reality is considerably more complex.

[Ħ]

If you can do it mentally (forget what's physically possible), then can we say that one of these fundamental particles is an aggregate? Certainly half a proton is conceivable - just something that has half a positive charge with half the mass of a proton.

[eric42434224]

Just to be clear. Can you take a SINGLE proton/electron/quark/whatever and say "this half" and "that half"? I'd like someone who actually knows what they're talking about to respond. Someone like Dr. DTVT.

As of now with electrons and quarks, with what we know....no.  But I think the proton can, into quarks.
And you dont need an expert for that, it is elementary knowledge (pun intended).

From Wiki:

The electron (symbol: e−) is a subatomic particle with a negative elementary electric charge.[8] It has no known components or substructure

A quark ( /ˈkwɔrk/ or /ˈkwɑrk/) is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter.

[ariich]

If you can do it mentally (forget what's physically possible), then can we say that one of these fundamental particles is an aggregate? Certainly half a proton is conceivable - just something that has half a positive charge with half the mass of a proton.

A proton, yes, because that is made up of quarks.

The fundamental particles though, dividing them into halves is purely a mental/visual thing - at least in terms of what we know right now, it has no scientific meaning.

[Rathma]

Why have people always obsessed over exactly what is the fundamental particle, even though it's obvious that there's no way to prove that a certain something is fundamental?

[eric42434224]

Why have people always obsessed over exactly what is the fundamental particle, even though it's obvious that there's no way to prove that a certain something is fundamental?

I believe if a scientist were asked, he/she would respond "As it stands, and to the best of our scientific knowledge."

[Ħ]

If you can do it mentally (forget what's physically possible), then can we say that one of these fundamental particles is an aggregate? Certainly half a proton is conceivable - just something that has half a positive charge with half the mass of a proton.

A proton, yes, because that is made up of quarks.

The fundamental particles though, dividing them into halves is purely a mental/visual thing - at least in terms of what we know right now, it has no scientific meaning.

It potentially has logical meaning, though.

[ariich]

Yeah, what Eric said. A scientist (or at least a good one anyway) would only talk about quarks and electrons (and the rest) as fundamental particles on the basis that it's what they are to the best of our knowledge. But physicists are always interested in drilling down further.

[ariich]

If you can do it mentally (forget what's physically possible), then can we say that one of these fundamental particles is an aggregate? Certainly half a proton is conceivable - just something that has half a positive charge with half the mass of a proton.

A proton, yes, because that is made up of quarks.

The fundamental particles though, dividing them into halves is purely a mental/visual thing - at least in terms of what we know right now, it has no scientific meaning.

It potentially has logical meaning, though.

Only if you think of it as, say, a ball. In order to have a north or a south, it needs to have a shape, which as far as I know has not been observed in the fundamental particles, and if it had, I think it would be an indication that in fact they are not fundamental and that they are made of something else.

[Rathma]

I've heard even scientist say how they think that maybe this time we've reached the fundamental level of matter, though. They want to drill further, but many are also very eager to hurry and sum up all physics up with a theory of everything. Which is impossible.

[Ħ]

Suppose there are fundamental particles we haven't discovered that are shapeless. How could the summation of the fundamental particles (which are basically immaterial) create material objects that have shape?

[eric42434224]

Suppose there are fundamental particles we haven't discovered that are shapeless. How could the summation of the fundamental particles (which are basically immaterial) create material objects that have shape?

They may serve a purpose other than creating mass.

[Ħ]

How could the summation of massless fundamental particles give us something that has mass?

[eric42434224]

How could the summation of massless fundamental particles give us something that has mass?

They work in conjuction with the particles that have mass I would think.

[ariich]

How could the summation of massless fundamental particles give us something that has mass?

Energy and mass are different manifestations of the same thing.

EDIT: Oh and the fundamental particles aren't massless, only neutrinos are (and even then we're not sure). But I think that to our current knowledge they are essentially dimensionless. Although I'd prefer someone who is still doing physics to weigh in here because I'm only going by what I remember from uni.

I've heard even scientist say how they think that maybe this time we've reached the fundamental level of matter, though. They want to drill further, but many are also very eager to hurry and sum up all physics up with a theory of everything. Which is impossible.

Well maybe there are some scientists who want to do that, but I did a physics degree and I didn't know anyone in my department who was like that. Most physicists are fascinated, and have this idea of a Grand Unified Theory as a goal, a target, something to aim towards, but know full well the chance of ever reaching it, certainly in our life times, is low.

[Ħ]

How could the summation of massless fundamental particles give us something that has mass?

Energy and mass are different manifestations of the same thing.

Energy always has a value attached to it though, doesn't it? A value that corresponds to a certain mass? But if a hypothetical fundamental particle/wave/whatever it is has 0J and 0g, then it has no chance at adding together to other fundamental particles to become an object with a mass.

Basically, where I'm at right now in this discussion is this:

1) For any part of nature X with a mass n, there is a part of nature Y with a mass less than n.
2) Any part of nature that has a higher mass than another part of nature is not a fundamental particle.
3) Suppose a part of nature has a mass of 0.
4) By (2), this part of nature is a fundamental particle.
5) If all matter consists of fundamental particles and nothing else, then the mass of all matter is the sum of the mass of all the fundamental particles.
6) If (3), then the mass of all matter is 0.
7) The mass of all matter is not 0.
8) No part of nature has a mass of 0.
C) No part of nature is a fundamental particle.


I know squat about mereology, so I'm just playing games with this thread. It's fun though, and if someone can refute me, I'd be interested to see how.

[eric42434224]

I think #2 is not correct.
Quarks are fundamental and different quarks have different mass.

I dont think the qualification of a particle being fundamental is lowest mass, but that it has no substructure

[Ħ]

I think #2 is not correct.
Quarks are fundamental and different quarks have different mass.

I don't know how small a quark is (I looked it up on wiki, but it was way too difficult to understand). But supposing a quark has a mass of Q, I can concieve of a particle with a mass of Q/2 - half a quark, basically.

[eric42434224]

I think #2 is not correct.
Quarks are fundamental and different quarks have different mass.

I don't know how small a quark is (I looked it up on wiki, but it was way too difficult to understand). But supposing a quark has a mass of Q, I can concieve of a particle with a mass of Q/2 - half a quark, basically.

I dont think so.  It has no substructure that we can determine, so it cant be divided.
But other particles have less mass I believe.  But I dont think decreasing mass makes it more fundamental, if that is what you are asking...not sure.

[Chino]

Cant the event horizon of a black hole physilcally rip atoms and there contents into smaller pieces?